Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So you believe that climate science should never use computer models? Yes?
).
So you believe that climate science should never use computer models? Yes?
So you believe that climate science should never use computer models? Yes?
Nobody would say that....but using computer models as a guide to determine climate change policy is a waste of time ( and rejected by government policy-makers btw
Only the small contingent of alarmists would advocate for spending huge amounts of $$ ( see Solyndra 2010 ) based upon the dartboard accuracy of computer models.
In the real world, we can't ( and won't) be doing that!
So you believe that climate science should never use computer models? Yes?
Nobody would say that....but using computer models as a guide to determine climate change policy is a waste of time ( and rejected by government policy-makers btw
Only the small contingent of alarmists would advocate for spending huge amounts of $$ ( see Solyndra 2010 ) based upon the dartboard accuracy of computer models.
In the real world, we can't ( and won't) be doing that!
Didn't Obama sign us up for the Paris Agreement? Seeing as how the Democratic Party continues to move further Left, if they ever regain control of Congress and the WH it wouldn't surprise me if they authorize huge amounts of our tax dollars on GW/CC.
Only if I get to write the software.So you believe that climate science should never use computer models? Yes?
Only if I get to write the software.So you believe that climate science should never use computer models? Yes?
You’ll argue only someone you certify should be able to write it.
Thus the crux of the issue. Software models can be easily manipulated, especially when only 1% of the topical variables are known, as with the case with the climate.
or perhaps it is you that doesn't understand what it is.I'm not sure you understand the scientific meaning of the word theory.Your a whiz at nonsense. LOL The science is settled that water vapor, CO2, CH4, and NOx are GHGs. That was settled in 1859 by John Tyndall. Svante Arrhenius did the calculations for the doubling of CO2 in 1896, and the figure he arrived at was pretty accurate. You are a know nothing with delusions of intelligence.I'm a wiz at statistics. You can get up to be down and in to be out with such ease.The more we learn...My problem is when your side wants to completely discredit science without even attempting to do any science to do it.
Global warming Mythers know the tricks too.
But no proof whatsoever it is the cause of any warming. None. It's a theory.
Too, it is exceedingly clear that all around the world, the people who make climate change policy concur: the alarmists, after 20 years by the way, have yet to make the case. Any climate change policies by Western governments have been symbolic only. The warmists get all giddy about that ( as all progressives do getting euphoric over banners and symbols ) but most people don't care. The Paris Treaty being as dead as a doornail is just a small example of the profound failure of the climate science industry not being able to make even a close to convincing case.
wasn't Chicago under ice once or twice or thrice? I live here so I know today it isn't. see you don't have the ability to rationalize the global affects from temperatures. you think the globe is supposed to be some temperature. I don't. I look at what I observe and live my life in that environment. You wish to control how I live because you have some nutty belief of the globe temperature. funny, you think you can control it.Dumb fuck. Observed melting of the cryosphere. Observed warming of the atmosphere. Observed warming of the oceans. Observed sea level rise. Observed decrease in the pH of the oceans. Observed absorption spectra of the GHGs. Now tell me what your observations are that says that any of this is incorrect.One word, observedAs in any mathematical endeavor, the order in which you do the operations is the difference between right and wrong... In life it is the difference between life and death. Since we still have little understanding as to what the proper order of operations is in our climate, making the assumption you know the proper order is fantasy. Empirical review of your models shows they are 100% failures, without exception. Thus your order of operations is wrong!The more we learn...My problem is when your side wants to completely discredit science without even attempting to do any science to do it.
Billy, given your extensive experience, I was wondering if you could give us a quick overview on the technique of working from abject ignorance with willful lies? Have you found that to be a productive and beneficial technique or does the corporal punishment your poor, embarrassed mother inflicts on you daily build on whatever it is tht serves you as a conscience?
Billy, he thinks we can control the temperature.And yet you have not ascertained what portion of any of this is caused directly by man and which can not be explained by natural variation... You use made up models that are incapable of showing this as every one FAILS empirical review... Yet you 'believe'.....Dumb fuck. Observed melting of the cryosphere. Observed warming of the atmosphere. Observed warming of the oceans. Observed sea level rise. Observed decrease in the pH of the oceans. Observed absorption spectra of the GHGs. Now tell me what your observations are that says that any of this is incorrect.One word, observedAs in any mathematical endeavor, the order in which you do the operations is the difference between right and wrong... In life it is the difference between life and death. Since we still have little understanding as to what the proper order of operations is in our climate, making the assumption you know the proper order is fantasy. Empirical review of your models shows they are 100% failures, without exception. Thus your order of operations is wrong!The more we learn...My problem is when your side wants to completely discredit science without even attempting to do any science to do it.
Billy, given your extensive experience, I was wondering if you could give us a quick overview on the technique of working from abject ignorance with willful lies? Have you found that to be a productive and beneficial technique or does the corporal punishment your poor, embarrassed mother inflicts on you daily build on whatever it is tht serves you as a conscience?
Hell, you cant even define the range of natural variation, which everything we have seen the last 300 years falls well within....
it isn't possible to model something one can't control.I cant wait for the usual appeal to authority and "peer review"...Your a whiz at nonsense. LOL The science is settled that water vapor, CO2, CH4, and NOx are GHGs. That was settled in 1859 by John Tyndall. Svante Arrhenius did the calculations for the doubling of CO2 in 1896, and the figure he arrived at was pretty accurate. You are a know nothing with delusions of intelligence.I'm a wiz at statistics. You can get up to be down and in to be out with such ease.The more we learn...My problem is when your side wants to completely discredit science without even attempting to do any science to do it.
Global warming Mythers know the tricks too.
Every paper you cite failed empirical review.... now that's funny as hell.. When your modeling fails, when tested against observations, you have no proof of anything except failure and evidence that they do not understand the system they are modeling.... yet you want to kill your economy and enslave every one for your belief's.... Sad really.. so easily duped!
Lol......
Billy.....these climate crusaders can't go a single day without trying to pull some kind of fakery.
Doesn't matter that they do not understand the system and fail at modeling it...Its peer reviewed... so its gospel... duped retards... It speaks volumes about their peers credibility and ethical conduct as well...
No, I'm pretty sure it's the other way around.or perhaps it is you that doesn't understand what it is.I'm not sure you understand the scientific meaning of the word theory.Your a whiz at nonsense. LOL The science is settled that water vapor, CO2, CH4, and NOx are GHGs. That was settled in 1859 by John Tyndall. Svante Arrhenius did the calculations for the doubling of CO2 in 1896, and the figure he arrived at was pretty accurate. You are a know nothing with delusions of intelligence.I'm a wiz at statistics. You can get up to be down and in to be out with such ease.The more we learn...My problem is when your side wants to completely discredit science without even attempting to do any science to do it.
Global warming Mythers know the tricks too.
But no proof whatsoever it is the cause of any warming. None. It's a theory.
Too, it is exceedingly clear that all around the world, the people who make climate change policy concur: the alarmists, after 20 years by the way, have yet to make the case. Any climate change policies by Western governments have been symbolic only. The warmists get all giddy about that ( as all progressives do getting euphoric over banners and symbols ) but most people don't care. The Paris Treaty being as dead as a doornail is just a small example of the profound failure of the climate science industry not being able to make even a close to convincing case.
or not.No, I'm pretty sure it's the other way around.or perhaps it is you that doesn't understand what it is.I'm not sure you understand the scientific meaning of the word theory.Your a whiz at nonsense. LOL The science is settled that water vapor, CO2, CH4, and NOx are GHGs. That was settled in 1859 by John Tyndall. Svante Arrhenius did the calculations for the doubling of CO2 in 1896, and the figure he arrived at was pretty accurate. You are a know nothing with delusions of intelligence.I'm a wiz at statistics. You can get up to be down and in to be out with such ease.
Global warming Mythers know the tricks too.
But no proof whatsoever it is the cause of any warming. None. It's a theory.
Too, it is exceedingly clear that all around the world, the people who make climate change policy concur: the alarmists, after 20 years by the way, have yet to make the case. Any climate change policies by Western governments have been symbolic only. The warmists get all giddy about that ( as all progressives do getting euphoric over banners and symbols ) but most people don't care. The Paris Treaty being as dead as a doornail is just a small example of the profound failure of the climate science industry not being able to make even a close to convincing case.
So you believe that climate science should never use computer models? Yes?
Nobody would say that....but using computer models as a guide to determine climate change policy is a waste of time ( and rejected by government policy-makers btw
Only the small contingent of alarmists would advocate for spending huge amounts of $$ ( see Solyndra 2010 ) based upon the dartboard accuracy of computer models.
In the real world, we can't ( and won't) be doing that!
Didn't Obama sign us up for the Paris Agreement? Seeing as how the Democratic Party continues to move further Left, if they ever regain control of Congress and the WH it wouldn't surprise me if they authorize huge amounts of our tax dollars on GW/CC.
1. Science isn't settled about much of anything. We think we know the answers and then we find out new stuff and have to re-examine what we thought was true.
2. GW/CC is more about politics than it is about science, there's way too much about it scientifically that we don't know yet to be making any guarantees about this or that happening by the end of the century. It's about spending gobs of our tax dollars that could be better used in other ways.
3. The Paris Accords were about wealth redistribution, disguised as GW/CC.
And after 2020, the Democratic President can put us right back into it. And from his 'office' in Leavenworth, the orange clown will not be able to do a thing about it. And Pence can go back to building an alter to Mammon.
And after 2020, the Democratic President can put us right back into it. And from his 'office' in Leavenworth, the orange clown will not be able to do a thing about it. And Pence can go back to building an alter to Mammon.
The only debate here is whether or not the world needs to reduce GHG emissions or perhaps whether or not America's well-being is better served by unfettered capitalism than by saving the fucking planet.. If you think Trump has a superior understanding of the science than do the world's scientists or that they are all lying thieves, then stand up proud for your man. Don't be weaseling around with all these sideshow arguments.
